I was hearing about this today. I knew about those things mentioned when it came out and was pissed that they chose to make a hero out of a soldier who failed at their mission yet the countless who succeed never get mentioned.

I'm actually pretty impressed with her and the Ranger who spoke about the Tillman aftermath.

It was transparent nonsense at the time when they portrayed Ms. Lynch as this big hero (the official story didn't jive with any of the witness testimony or ancillary facts) but governments do those things during wartime. She could have quietly coasted on that hero story for a nice comfortable life so it's nice to hear her turn down unearned glory.

That part was nice and her honoring 'her heroes' as the men and women who answer the call when their country needs them. The thing is there's no need to embelish on these stories that happen every day by regular people over there. Why the gov't feels the need to is beyond me.

That part was nice and her honoring 'her heroes' as the men and women who answer the call when their country needs them. The thing is there's no need to embelish on these stories that happen every day by regular people over there. Why the gov't feels the need to is beyond me.

The government probably does this to encourage patriotism and to make people reflect positively upon the war. Let's face it, would you rather hear your family member died at the hands of the enemy in a fire fight or that he/she was accidently killed by friendly fire? I am sure the government/every government has done this same thing in every war. That doesn't make it right, it's just reality. Pat Tillman was a hero no matter how he died, and that is what the focus should be.

That part was nice and her honoring 'her heroes' as the men and women who answer the call when their country needs them. The thing is there's no need to embelish on these stories that happen every day by regular people over there. Why the gov't feels the need to is beyond me.

Governments do it to manipulate the public. Here, they had what could have been a public relations disaster. A support convoy gets lost, then ambushed, most of the soldiers give up without firing a single shot.

That looks bad and makes people feel bad.

So, they concoct a story about the heroic soldiers who fought against all odds only to be overcome at the last minute. Special Forces "rescue" the survivors from a hospital where they were being treated.

The whole Jessica Lynch story made the country feel good for awhile even when it was obvious that the story was nonsense. People wanted to believe it because they wanted to feel good about their soldiers. You've been in the military so you know it's composed of people with the same strengths and failings found in the larger society. However, at a time of war people want to think of their soldiers as sorta-superheroes.....so when a group of them screw things up and then panic like ordinary people do, you just downplay it or concoct a different story alltogether. It only works because you tell the story the way people want it to be. We want the world to be cleaner, nicer and more noble than it really is.

As to Tillman, that was worse IMHO. Here, you had a guy who actually was a hero. Scholar/Athlete who sacrificed personal gain for his country. He dies in a friendly fire incident (not uncommon at all in war) and they decided to exploit his hero status. The fact that Tillman supported the war in Afghanistan but opposed the Iraq war gets quietly swept under the rug while they use his corpse to rally people around government policies.

Governments do it to manipulate the public. Here, they had what could have been a public relations disaster. A support convoy gets lost, then ambushed, most of the soldiers give up without firing a single shot.

That looks bad and makes people feel bad.

So, they concoct a story about the heroic soldiers who fought against all odds only to be overcome at the last minute. Special Forces "rescue" the survivors from a hospital where they were being treated.

The whole Jessica Lynch story made the country feel good for awhile even when it was obvious that the story was nonsense. People wanted to believe it because they wanted to feel good about their soldiers. You've been in the military so you know it's composed of people with the same strengths and failings found in the larger society. However, at a time of war people want to think of their soldiers as sorta-superheroes.....so when a group of them screw things up and then panic like ordinary people do, you just downplay it or concoct a different story alltogether. It only works because you tell the story the way people want it to be. We want the world to be cleaner, nicer and more noble than it really is.

As to Tillman, that was worse IMHO. Here, you had a guy who actually was a hero. Scholar/Athlete who sacrificed personal gain for his country. He dies in a friendly fire incident (not uncommon at all in war) and they decided to exploit his hero status. The fact that Tillman supported the war in Afghanistan but opposed the Iraq war gets quietly swept under the rug while they use his corpse to rally people around government policies.

It's always better to hear the truth, even if it is unattractive!

...on a darker note someone like a Pat Tillman could be very dangerous to a government that relies on "patriotic" stories to further its agenda. Here is this amazing man who gave up a dream life of professional sports millionaire, to pursue his own beliefs. Really inspirational beyond the military and patriotism, this was a man who lived by his own rules.

If Pat Tillman had lived to return to the US, he could have influenced millions of people who have similar beliefs about the US presence in Iraq. He was there and he saw the reality of the situation, no terrorists, just a bunch of starving peasants.

Friendly fire ?

Vietnam had many such "frag" casualties because of a business plan approach to the fighting. Must use "x" amount of ammo must have "x" amounts of enemy dead, this just doesn't work in terms of achieving objectives. This war plan is what caused all the criticism of Rumsfeld by the generals in Iraq.

...on a darker note someone like a Pat Tillman could be very dangerous to a government that relies on "patriotic" stories to further its agenda. Here is this amazing man who gave up a dream life of professional sports millionaire, to pursue his own beliefs. Really inspirational beyond the military and patriotism, this was a man who lived by his own rules.

If Pat Tillman had lived to return to the US, he could have influenced millions of people who have similar beliefs about the US presence in Iraq. He was there and he saw the reality of the situation, no terrorists, just a bunch of starving peasants.

Friendly fire ?

Vietnam had many such "frag" casualties because of a business plan approach to the fighting. Must use "x" amount of ammo must have "x" amounts of enemy dead, this just doesn't work in terms of achieving objectives. This war plan is what caused all the criticism of Rumsfeld by the generals in Iraq.

Well, don't go too far. Tilman died in Afghanistan, a war which he supported though he was (privately) critical of how it was being fought (on the cheap). He thought the war in Iraq was unjustified and violated international law. Because of his high profile, he could have certainly influenced the public debate but he chose not to. I'm not going to buy some conspiracy theory that he was killed to silence him. He was already silent. He shared his criticisms with a close circle of people and they only came to light after his death. War is chaotic. Friendly fire deaths/injuries are surprisingly common.